Share this

I would give him an A - . Rome wasn’t built in a day, and Moscow can’t be won in a day. The two concrete agreements on nuclear reductions and assistance on transit for the war in Afghanistan are modest but real. He was right to reset a modest tone and avoid excessive expectations – no more nonsense about soulful eyes. He made the point that there are some areas of positive sum power relations between the two countries, yet also mentioned differences over rights and rule of law. To award a straight A, I would have liked to have seen more progress on proliferation in Iran and North Korea, but this visit was a useful step.

Obama deserves a solid A for his Moscow trip. Without abandoning American principles, he focused on specific issues and came away with concrete—albeit limited—agreements. His tone and demeanor have been businesslike rather than effusive, and he didn’t make any fatuous statements about looking into Medvedev’s or Putin’s “soul.” He acknowledged Russian interests without exaggerating Russian power, and successfully pressed for terms that advanced U.S. Interests as well. Bush made dealing with Russia look difficult; on this trip, Obama has made it look easy.

Having set out my criteria in yesterday's Arena post, I feel like I am in particularly good shape to offer a grade. I suggested three areas where we should judge Obama: providing support for democracy in Russia, re-establishing a cordial and respectful tone towards the Russians that would counter claims by Russian nationalists that all the US wants to do is destroy Russia, and seeking out and identifying areas of mutual interest between the two countries. Obama's speech today at the New Economic School in Moscow accomplished all three of these tasks well. There was clearly respect for both what Russia has been through and what Russia has accomplished. There was a pointed discussion about the importance of the rule of law, something that the Russian president himself has also discussed in the past, and a nice explanation of why the US thinks democracy so important. And there was a great deal of attention to common interests shared by the US and Russia, including thwarting the proliferation of nucelar weapons and addressing Al Qaeda and global terrorism.

I am holding off from giving the visit a flat "A" because I would have also liked to see some sort of more dramatic step taken by the president to give a little more substance to his desire to "reset" US-Russian relations.

The relationship is of course complicated for reasons I have outlined elsewhere which means that small and subtle steps like the ones the President has taken are in most cases appropriate. Still, the danger is that any potential for real change in the relationship will diminish once the spotlight from the visit fades, and some sort of more dramatic step might have helped give more impetus to improved US-Russian relations. The one inkling in this regard that I saw in the speech at the New Economic School was again reiterating the possibility from Obama's previous "secret letter" to Medvedev that if Russia were to get on board with preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power then the US might be willing to abandon the planned missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe. If this proposal were somehow "accepted" - or if Russia somehow became involved in the missile defense system itself - then this might end up being a big deal down the road. But for now, it just is sort of sitting out there as an interesting idea.

From the point of view of a person of color in the US, I would give President Obama high marks for his performance in Russia. Some pundits worry that Sonia Sotomayor would see the world of justice through the lens of her background - Puerto Rican, Spanish speaking, and proud of her heritage. (Since the “norm” in this country is white male, no one asked John Roberts whether his background of privilege might ever “color” his point of view. His race, gender, and wealth were considered “neutral” factors.)

President Obama’s stance toward Russia shows that coming from a different background can lead to a greater respect for difference. He is able to say, “America is by no means perfect.” He is able to talk about Russia’s great history, one of cultural, intellectual, and political advances that preceded many of our own nation’s accomplishments. He – our first President of African descent – quotes Alexander Pushkin, a poet and patriot of African descent, who has been one of Russia’s greatest national heros for several centuries, centuries during which the US still considered Africans as less than human.

Living outside of the invisible norm and learning two sets of cultures and values, people of color have the experience that enables them to walk in very different shoes, to treat other nations with the respect and understanding that are necessary to building strong and cooperative relationships. In a global economy more integrated than ever before, the leadership of people like Obama and Sotomayor will stand us in good stead.

A "C." There is a commitment to slash nuclear stockpiles by a third, but there has been no accord reached concerning the issue of missile defense.

In addition, praising Vladimir Putin the way President Obama did has a "I looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul" quality to it. It was entirely inappropriate to go over the top with this kind of praise, especially given Putin's autocratic nature and his belligerent actions overseas--from the invasion of Georgia, to the killing of dissidents abroad.

“A must see performance. If you missed it check it out on YouTube…”Diane Sawyer, Good Morning America

“Move over Reagan there is a new star in the Galaxy…”PEOPLE Magazine

Obama secured flyover rights of Russian airspace to supply our troops in Afghanistan. If you live in Tblisi, Goergia or Kiev, Ukraine yesterday was not a good day. When Czar Putin tries to re-establish the “good old days” of Russian hegemony over these countries Obama won’t be able to object or else Putin will just cancel the flyovers putting re-supply of our troops at risk.

And my guess is that missile defense for Eastern Europe is a dead duck because the Russians will insist on it before they pressure Iran on anything. Sorry all you new democracies who Reagan helped free from the yoke of Soviet tyranny, you are on your own.

The only thing missing is an airport photo op where Obama waves the papers he signed and declares “peace in our time”.

If his speechwriters don’t want to re-invent the wheel here are some comments from Neville Chamberlain almost 71 years ago on another great deal for the West.

"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you (proceeds to read the agreement). [...] We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."
As for me, when it comes to Czar Putin and his ventriloquist dummy Medvedev, I will sleep with one eye opened, one hand on my Colt .45 and a fast horse nearby.

President Obama's Moscow speech was vintage Obama: a compelling vision for peace and prosperity framed in generational terms.

The narrative arc is what we've come to expect from an Obama speech: describe the longtime problems, conspicuously reject old fights that block progress, then propose a new consensus:

"There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another.

Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over. As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game – progress must be shared."

Inasmuch as Obama is selling a "reset" in world affairs, the President's Moscow speech delivered the goods.

I give him a B-/C+. Although he got some minor concessions in terms of reducing the nuclear arsenals for both powers, he didn't achieve any major breakthroughs on the nitty-gritty issues of missile defense and NATO expansion that continues to roil US-Russian relations. The latter areas of potential conflict are apparently going to be kicked around by diplomats in the coming months. All in all, not a bad performance, but not a particularly good one either.

Obama in Russia gets a A-. The President’s re-approachment was done with pomp and circumstance, substance and deliverables. It remains to be seen if the “agreements to agree”, will turn into concrete achievements, be it on arms reduction, military cooperation, commerce, etc. Russia is not what it used to be. They are trying to retain their “super power” status and to remain relevant. They are torn between being too aligned to us and our Nato allies and remaining distant enough to maintain their own super power identity. I am giving the President the benefit of the doubt to use his office in a constructive way in dealing with Russia, always remembering what Reagan said, “trust but verify” Reagan’s admonition is as important today as it was when he said it when dealing with Russia.

On the basis of what we know, I would give the president a B-. Hopefully his grade is higher based on what is being said in private.

Arms control accords are important and Obama is once again being an impressive, charismatic representative of America on the global stage.

On NATO expansion and anti-missile system, though, he is being a little disingenuous. You can't say “America wants a strong, peacefu l and prosperous Russia” in the same speech that you assert that Geo rgia and the Ukraine have the right to join NATO so long as they con tribute to its mission (hmm, let's remember what that was). I real ize Obama cannot do an abrupt U-turn on Russian policy, so this is w here I hope private diplomacy may be quite different from what we ar e seeing. But I doubt it.

The narrative behind Obama's Moscow eloquence is similar to the one he deployed in the Middle East: You have some folks with grievances on this side, and folks with equally legitimate grievances on that side, now why can't we all get along? America is here to help build bridges. But in this case, the actors aren't simply Georgia and Russia. The U.S. itself is a protagonist, and NATO is no bridge; it's a dagger aimed at Moscow (at least that is how it will forevermore be perceived in Russia, understandably). Continuing to expand NATO into the former Soviet Union, in violation of the understanding that accompanied the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe and German reunification, is a great way for us to ensure that Russia won't be peaceful and that its leaders retain at least one foot in the ways of the past, as Obama said of Vladimir Putin before the trip.

Well, there's couldn't be a bigger contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush, who famously looked into former KGB chief Putin's eyes "saw into his soul" and decided that Putin was "a good man." We know how that turned out. Obama's take on Putin: " I found him to be tough, smart, shrewd, very unsentimental, very pragmatic." Obama added "on areas where we disagree, like Georgia, I don't anticipate a meeting of the minds anytime soon." At least we can credit Obama with his clear-eyed discernment of the man who is really running Russia.

The reality is we won't know for another year how to grade President Obama's trip to Russia. Bush's visit was initially lauded as a success. Two years later, it was clear that he'd been outmaneuvered by Putin. So. . . time will tell.

To get the rights to fly over Russian air space to supply the American led NATO mission in Afghanistan is a significant achievement for President Obama. This is true particularly considering historic Russian disdain for NATO, the difficulty of supplying an increasingly hostile mission through Pakistan, and the fact that the War in Afghanistan will inevitably be part of Obama’s legacy.

The grades will be determined when we find out what the trade-off is. If the outcome is an end to the advance of NATO in Eastern Europe and missile shields followed by Russian compliance with pressuring Iran on the nuclear issue then Obama will get a solid A. This is the first in a series of steps that could lead to multiple outcomes. Some are good, but not all.

It was painful to watch our President in Moscow. When will President Obama stop apologizing for the transformational effect that American democracy has had on the world? If Obama was so concerned about nuclear proliferation, why not strive for meaningful agreements to get tough with Iran and North Korea, the two biggest proliferation nightmares on the planet? Instead, by putting reductions in U.S. military systems and missile defense on the table, Mr. Obama signaled an intention to cut US military spending. With the U.S. now running a $2 trillion annual deficit, as a result of Obama’s failing economic policies, deep cuts in government spending were always going to be required. Instead of cutting entitlement programs where cuts can do the most good, we now know that Mr. Obama intends deep cuts in defense, where it can do the most harm. Get ready for that shoe to drop. \

President Obama needs to wake up from his dream for me to give him his "F." Yesterday, he hit the "reset" button, again, on the U.S.-Russia relationship. And let's be honest, the reset button means "I'm sorry about that last guy who was President, but don't worry, you'll love me." He even repeated his new campaign slogan "By no means is America perfect." Catchy. So, more apologies not withstanding, he was able to show the powers that be in Russia, that they indeed have the power. He went there with the naïve assertion that the "future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground." His goal, much like his Global Warming agenda, is to unilaterally eliminate our nation's strategic defenses, and other countries will eventually see the light and play along. Unfortunately, here in reality, Russia is unwilling to help with Iran, unwilling to make concessions on Tblisi, unwilling to engage in human rights issues and is unwilling to allow the U.S. to protect its homeland and allies with a missile defense shield. Obama gets an F, but realistically he should be sent back a grade.

Obama and the country would be better off if he’d gone to Moscow, Idaho to see the economic devastation his ultra-liberal policies have wrought. But that is considered “fly over country” to the left and not to be tread upon by the sophisticated crowd.

Looking presidential in Moscow is no stretch for the president. He could work Broadway for years and look fresh and spontaneous every night. The problem is not how he looks on stage, but how he leads. There as they say in Houston, "we have a problem."

Outsourcing the presidential crisis in Latin America to the Secretary of State does not look very leader-like. Apparently its important for the president to appear to be giving the "shoot" order to take down a couple of poverty-striken pirates, but addressing one the thorniest issues of saving democracy in our hemisphere in the last decade is a detail for underlings.

Following the president's non-interest in the Iranian election....there seems to be a real pattern here.

Maybe it is better that Clinton take the lead in dealing with crisis after all she is the one who wanted to answer the 3 am phone call.

Michael Vogler (guest)
Teacher , VA:

For his first meeting in Russia, I give Mr. Obama a “B”. Why such a high grade? Because at this point in his presidency the bar is slipping lower and lower, based on his handling of Iran and Honduras.
Our president came away from his meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev with a “continuing agreement” to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles from the old Cold War days. I say “continuing agreement” because the START I nuclear arms reduction treaty is already in place and is set to expire on December 5th, this handshake deal continues a treaty that has been in place since 1991.
Obama gets a “B” because he was able to negotiate the use of Russian airspace to help the war in Afghanistan. This might seem something special on the surface, but with Russian territory thousands of miles away from Afghanistan, I don’t see what sort of strategic advantage this gives the U.S. military. It will be curious to see what concessions Mr. Obama must yield to in return for this agreement.
There are so many other issues that need to be addressed with Russia. Their support in fighting terrorism world-wide would be a welcome conversation. The ongoing debate about Russian assistance to Iran and North Korea on their nuclear and weapons capabilities that threatens to destabilize much of the world. Russia’s adversarial roll towards its neighbors, mainly Georgia and discussions about that country and the Ukraine becoming permanent members of NATO.
I know this was the president’s first trip. But outlining some additional goals to reach together would have been nice. This past winter we saw Russia hold much of Europe hostage over the use of their natural gas pipeline. The Russian economy has been hit especially hard by the global economic downturn, some discussions on energy, education and economy would have been nice as a “for starters”. It just seems to me more could have been discussed and more aggressive goals for the people of the two nations could have been established.

Stefan Saal (guest)
sculptor , NH:

Noticeable signs of decay have appeared. They can go on increasing until dissolution comes. Or, we can heed the first signs of decay, and try to check them in time. The United States is accustomed to being the creative leader, but due to our economic collapse we must become more receptive and learn from the situation what is demanded of us. We must try to maintain complementary relationships with other great nations such as Russia and China. That requires us to make a mental adjustment.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
Writer/Editor , MD:

President Obama has shown a good mix of leadership and respect in Russia, particularly given that country's obvious sensitivity over its recent and continuing loss of the kinds of power and influence it enjoyed in the last century. Both are required for progress to be made. That Russians have been convinced that it is in both nations' interest for the United States to be able to use Russian airspace for troop and military equipment to Afghanistan is useful, for example, as is the positive start the United States and Russia have apparently made toward further ballistic missile reduction. What I am struck by most, however, is just how prescient and strategic Mr. Obama was in his appointment of Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State. All the pieces of the completed and pending agreements that emerged yesterday (and others that will likely emerge in the next several months and years) are the result of Secretary Clinton's and her team's expertise, persistence, and creativity. Should the Obama years be seen in the years ahead as a time when serious, practical, and lasting steps were taken toward a safer East-West world, the work of Mrs. Clinton will likely stand out as the central reason for it.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
Research Energy and Gaming , NV:

What a neat line-up in batting order today. Lurita Doan went to bat and three strikes your out. Rory Cooper doing his best to hit the elusive ball of just how to bat it down for a base hit for his side (oh didn't we all love this way of thinking in these disastrous last few years) struck out one, two, three strikes your out too! Finally in a few short sentences of clarity Stephen M. Walt not only benched these two for back to the minor leagues with the train waiting for them to board, but nailed the right answer - a solid A. What else can I say about President Obama that can provide a better contrast than these three have all ready spoken? Well I think "Confidence" in Americans and Citizens of the World nearly everywhere is what is making our country and world go round, and this unique enlightened man is the only one who could do it right now.

Carl Owen (guest)
Mailman , OK:

Despite rather modest gains I'd give him an A. What he did wasn't wring hard concessions from a prickly nation not sure if it's our friend or enemy but instead he established the foundation for future talks. I'm always amazed at how those on the Right simply have nothing good to say about what President Obama did or will do. I disliked President Bush's actions because I felt they harmed the long term interest of our country. Personally I think he had every intention of doing good but his results showed differently. Maybe conservatives need to figure out what's more important, the re-vitalization of America or the reclamation of power by the GOP.

Adam Cohn (guest)
Trader , IL:

The reponses on here are predictable and disappointing. You would think that a forum of experts would actually have some that do some critical thinking. But instead we get nothing but lame politcal talking points and snark. Mr. Shirley's contention that Obama should visit Moscow. Idaho to see "the economic devastation his ultra-liberal policies have wrought" is ridiculous. I wonder if Mr. Shirely could wax poetic about how Moscow, Id was thriving on Jan 19th of this year. Nearly a day doesn't do by that Mr. Carafano doesn't find some way to tie nearly every question to missle defense. It actually warms my heart that the same think tank that backed nearly everyone of Bush's failed policies has been so critical of President Obama...it must mean he is doing something right. It's unfortuante that people are too blinded by partisanship and politcs that they can't do anything than spew talking points. A to the Russian trip. The deal with Russia over Afganistan is important and will be a critical help to our military in re-supplying troops to a difficult to reach landlocked country. That in itself deserves praise. That they have reached an outline for agreement on proliferation is also important. But the only honest grade to give Obama is an incomplete. Foriegn policy takes years to see fruition (it took George Bush 8 years to ruin our relationships). Obama will not see the fruits of these trips for awhile and only than can an honest answer be given.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.